Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 735 Case file # 95-286722.

Material Examiner: Malone (RQ)

Remarks:

Case resulted in a guilty plea, no testimony transcript.

CRM - 4167

ri a7 ' = =F 1

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 11:00 AM (Time), 11/05/01 (Date)

File #: 95-286722

Laboratory #{s}: 90206045

Examiner(s) & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ x ‘9 a q | oO C)

QO 0 0 G

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Not available Testimony Date(s): Papes: Laboratory Repori(s): Laboratory Number: 90206045 Date: Mar 15, 1989 Laboratory Number: Date: Laboratory Number: Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician Laboratory Number: Page | of 3

CRM - 4168

Enitials: ou hv

Was any other material reviewed? X Yes 0 No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letter dated }-27-89

Results of Review

File#: 95-286722 item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q3

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? OYes ONo XO Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? O Yes XGWNo O Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

XXQ Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the taboratory report(s)? OYes GNo OO Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? OYes ONo OUnable to Detennine

5} Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes GQNo O Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3

Initials: Hh

Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-286722

#1: It appears that the unidentified technician performed much of the examination, such as physical description,

microscopic examination and solubility testing of the fibers, instead of RQ.

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated and are in pencil and not ink. The spectra are not properly

labeled. Sufficient testing was performed to support the reported conclusion.

Review completed at: 11:30AM (Time), 11/05/01 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.50 hr.

[ hereby certify that | conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total 3 pages.

é 11/05/2001 / (Signature) (Date)

Pape 3 of 3

Initials: Mk A